Legal Opinion

Mott v. Zimmerman

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided September 23, 1924No. 14053PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

PINKHAM, C.

Plaintiff in error, as plaintiff, filed suit in the district court of Tulsa county against the defendants to recover $312.20, for work and labor .performed on and material furnished and placed upon a certain automobile belonging to the defendant G. E. Zimmerman, and sued out an attachment which was levied upon the said automobile.

Thereafter the defendant filed his motion to discharge the attachment upon the grounds: First, that the attachment affidavit is insufficient on its face; and, second, that the alleged grounds set forth in said affidavit are untrue.

This motion was…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Stuart v. LordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Jacobson v. KillSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
  3. Dunn v. Claunch, Gilliland and DodsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1904
  4. Williams v. the Farmer's Gin and Grain Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1903

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Pabst Brewing Co. v. NelsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
  2. Riley v. RileySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1939
  3. Smith v. Stricker Radio & Music Shoppe, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926
  4. State Ex Rel. Mothersead v. CarsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
  5. Antrim Lbr. Co. v. HazelSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API